Teen Seks: Substitute for Universal Alternate Energy or Devil's Handmaiden?

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Before someone got the bright idea that the intestine of some animal could serve as a sperm-shielding sleeve for a schlong during intercourse, having sex was kind of a big deal. Historically, few socially acceptable actions had bigger consequences than sex. Actually, I can't think of any.

Being naked with another person, and poking, enveloping, or grinding on them is pretty much the most intimate interaction that two people can have with one another. This crosses all cultures, to my knowledge. It's not just a construct of the puritanical, buzz-kill Abrahamic religions.

Even today, with modern substitutes for animal parts, it is still a big deal in terms of possible physical consequences because, well, condos.

I imagine it was already a big deal even in pre-civilization, having ramifications concerning who knows, status, alliances, livestock, or axe heads or something. I am imagining that before permanent settlements, the delay between puberty and culturally sanctioned pairing would have been shorter, since most of the reasons for the delay are economic in more modern societies, so far as I can determine. That is just speculation on my part though.

Based on some offhand googling, even in relatively recent times there has been wide variation in the waiting period.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I read a p. good explanation probably re: Bristol Palin, which said that religious social conservatives think very differently about teen pregnancy than most liberal types do. There was more to it, but in part, they don't want or expect their daughters to have fulfilling careers or anything, so they're much more accepting in that sense of their daughters getting pregnant while they're in school because their expectations never included things like college or a career or anything in the first place.

Are you suggesting that Barefoot and Pregnant does not constitute a "fullfilling career"? Why do all you liberal women hate stay at home moms?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I read a p. good explanation probably re: Bristol Palin, which said that religious social conservatives think very differently about teen pregnancy than most liberal types do. There was more to it, but in part, they don't want or expect their daughters to have fulfilling careers or anything, so they're much more accepting in that sense of their daughters getting pregnant while they're in school because their expectations never included things like college or a career or anything in the first place.

I kinda hate this part of the discussion, 'cause it inevitably comes down to that dichotomy, stay at home moms vs career women, and ne'er the twain shall meet. This being Utah, I know plenty of stay at home moms, even many who have finished a college degree and could have easily had a career. I also know quite a few who manage both working outside the home and raising kids, and none of them are rich enough to afford any help beyond an occasional babysitter. I even know a few career women who have never had any kids and don't plan to.

I guess my point is, why can't we all just get along, or something?

[lisarea]

OK, but that is so not about anything I said.

The point is that people reading and writing a lot of the commentary on the internets tend to have a very fundamental disconnect with the experience of religious social conservatives. They project their own concerns onto others and expect them to be as horrified as they would be at the prospect of their daughters missing out on college and a career and maybe travel and such; when for a lot of people, that wasn't the sort of thing they expected anyway, so a teen pregnancy isn't quite as far off from what they've wanted and expected. A teen pregnancy is still usually not ideal for various reasons, but it's not quite as devastating as a lot of people assume it would be.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by SR71

It seems totally true to me that maintaining or ending that special state can result in anything ranging from a status enhancing or destroying event to an ego boost, a positive and beneficial psychological event, or an awful complex of guilt, shame and regret.

I'm also thinking in terms of purity balls and abstinence pledges and stuff. According to one thing I read, one in six American girls has taken a purity pledge, vowing to abstain from sex until marriage. And they use some really disturbing, objectifying imagery in their propaganda. A really common one is to pass around an unwrapped chocolate bar or something so it gets all melted and dirty, then ask the kids if they'd want to eat it, or asking them if they'd want a used Kleenex. They literally tell girls to think of themselves as some single-use disposable object that they have to guard and protect in order to retain value.

The more hardcore purity believers have these purity balls, designed to be a bonding experience between girls and their fathers. And the whole focus is on the girl's "purity," primarily abstinence from sex. They take vows to remain virgins until they get married, at which point their fathers will basically gift their husbands with their daughters' virginity. They have creepy wedding-like ceremonies with their dads, where they read vows and stuff.

These dads are telling their daughters that their primary value to them is their sexuality. Even worse, their primary value isn't something positive--something they've worked on or practiced or done--but something they haven't done. How can so many people objectify their own children like that?

What do they tell those girls when, inevitably, some of them break that promise? Do their dads then follow through, and consider them used up and worthless? Do they toss them out like they would a melted chocolate or a used Kleenex? And if they don't, how the hell do they reconcile it to their daughters? Do they say LOL J/K I didn't really mean all that stuff with that thing where you got fitted for a special dress and had to learn all those dance moves and shit to drive home the point that your primary value as a daughter and a human being was the fact that you would never do that thing you just did?

DISCLAIMER: I don't care very much for these abstinence and purity pledges that are the fashion these days.

[Kael]

Sorry, I guess the part I quoted wasn't all that pertinent, and I wasn't trying to say you were doing it. It made more sense in my head, but I was just complaining about the bullshit ideas that keep getting kicked around when people talk about teen pregnancy when the discussion gets to motherhood and careers and shit, like kids being the ultimate joy, fulfillment, and meaning in life, or (admittedly MUCH less common to actually encounter, but still represented in the public narrative for these discussions) that having kids prevents you from ever doing anything meaningful with your life.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I'm also thinking in terms of purity balls and abstinence pledges and stuff. According to one thing I read, one in six American girls has taken a purity pledge, vowing to abstain from sex until marriage. And they use some really disturbing, objectifying imagery in their propaganda. A really common one is to pass around an unwrapped chocolate bar or something so it gets all melted and dirty, then ask the kids if they'd want to eat it, or asking them if they'd want a used Kleenex. They literally tell girls to think of themselves as some single-use disposable object that they have to guard and protect in order to retain value.

Ok, so, my wife and I were both raised Mormon. I can find little enough to complain about with that, as when I started moving away from the faith all it meant was that I stopped going to church and so forth, plus my contentions were almost entirely theological in nature, and I never actually deviated from most of the rules I grew up with, except that I started liking coffee, lost most of my swearing taboos, and found out I didn't like drinking alcohol anyway. I often joke with my dad that of my siblings, all of whom also left the church, despite being the most vocal atheist and critic of the lot I am the one living the closest thing to the ideal Mormon lifestyle. He never laughs, but for some reason that makes it all the more amusing to me*.

The stories I hear from my wife, though, about the shit she went through... She's told me about youth meetings (for the girls, the boys never got anything like this at any of the meetings I went to) where they do exactly what you're talking about here, making damn sure every girl in there understands that with their "pure" virginity intact people will like them, and then some handsome returned missionary will sweep them off their feet into marital bliss, but without it they're as repulsive as dirty mop water. She's allowed me to read journal entries from her mid to late teens, during which she did not live that "purity" and I've seen all the self-loathing she had internalized, and that she really, truly believed that she was damaged goods, second-hand kleenex, essentially completely fucking worthless, whose only hope was that Jesus would take pity on her. It's been years since she left the church, and she's only just now starting to like herself again, intermittently.

It pisses me off so much when I think about it. No one should have to go through that, and to think that thousands of girls, just kids trying to figure out this whole life thing, are going through it all the fucking time, still today, right now... and I can't help but wonder how I can stop that from happening to my daughter, or how I can repair the damage if it does.

What do they tell those girls when, inevitably, some of them break that promise? Do their dads then follow through, and consider them used up and worthless? Do they toss them out like they would a melted chocolate or a used Kleenex? And if they don't, how the hell do they reconcile it to their daughters? Do they say LOL J/K I didn't really mean all that stuff with that thing where you got fitted for a special dress and had to learn all those dance moves and shit to drive home the point that your primary value as a daughter and a human being was the fact that you would never do that thing you just did?

This is the thing I probably hate the most about the way religion works in America. Healthy adults have a mental segregation, a filter between what they hear in church, or anywhere else, and what they do every day. Kids don't have that filter, and they believe every fucking word with all the strength of their heart, mind, and soul, trusting in the people teaching them. And then the adults have the utter fucking gall to act shocked and dumbfounded when some kid follows through and shoots a Wiccan, or hangs themselves for being gay, or some shit like that. I just fucking... fuck. I hate it so much.

*Though sometimes it's a bit frustrating and frightening, because he really does believe that he failed as a parent and will face the eternal consequences. I've let up on that joke lately 'cause he has clinical depression and just lost his job, so I don't want to add fuel.

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Kael

And then the adults have the utter fucking gall to act shocked and dumbfounded when some kid follows through and shoots a Wiccan, or hangs themselves for being gay, or some shit like that. I just fucking... fuck. I hate it so much.

Perhaps they really are shocked and dumbfounded? Not because they have a right to be, but because they're too dim to realize it's their fault. Stupid people don't know they're stupid. How could they? They're stupid.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Kael

Sorry, I guess the part I quoted wasn't all that pertinent, and I wasn't trying to say you were doing it. It made more sense in my head, but I was just complaining about the bullshit ideas that keep getting kicked around when people talk about teen pregnancy when the discussion gets to motherhood and careers and shit, like kids being the ultimate joy, fulfillment, and meaning in life, or (admittedly MUCH less common to actually encounter, but still represented in the public narrative for these discussions) that having kids prevents you from ever doing anything meaningful with your life.

I think it is very common, though. Middle class white people are huge, unrepentant shitheads about that sort of thing. Teen pregnancy and single parenthood are pretty much synonyms for huge social ills.

I was in my early 20s and married when I got pregnant, but of course the first thing that happened was my hands all swelled up so I couldn't wear my ring, and then I lol lost it. And I apparently looked a fair deal younger than I was. So I definitely parsed as a poor sad teen mother. And I am telling you, a lot of people treated me like absolute shit. They'd give me dirty looks, say repulsive things to me, and regularly, parents would stop and lecture their young daughters right in front of me about how they should not ruin their lives like that dumb girl obviously had. I lived downtown at the time, where it wasn't too bad usually, but when I went to visit my parents in the suburbs, the stream of shit was constant. My mom once came really close to punching a lady for making faces behind my back. Just about the only people who were even cordial to me at all were poor folks and minorities.

Thing is, it was actually not as bad for me because I at least knew their perception was wrong. It's got to be a hell of a lot worse for actual teen girls.

Teenaged girls are already one of the most vilified demographics out there. Everyone hates teenaged girls, but pregnant ones are the mascot for everything that is wrong with the world.

So I make a point to be extra friendly to anyone who looks like a pregnant teenager. I never assume they're pregnant unless they tell me they are, of course--they could have fibroids or just be weirdly fat--but I really want to be at least that one person here in the suburbs who smiles or says hello to them, because I know how cruel so many other people are.

[SR71]

I am happy to report that I have never shown contempt or disapproval to any teen single mothers, though I've only ever actually known one personally in my entire life. I'm certain I've seen more in public, but have not had any inclination to display any negative reaction in public. It freaks me out that some people would do that in the presence of a stranger who may or not be a teen mother.

In this one personal case, in line with earlier input from Kael and lisarea, the family was generally accepting of the situation and not overly harsh in judgement, at least as far as I could tell. I think the shock of the event is sometimes ameliorated becuz of Grammy and Grampa are happy about babby, you know? The teen mother did receive support from her parents and was able to continue in high school. She did not marry the father, who had no means to be of financial assistance. He did help in tending the child though. I have no idea how things turned out in the long run, because we moved from there.

For teen mothers who do not get support from their families, things must be quite a bit more difficult? I have very little idea at all about what forms of assistance are available.

[SR71]

If only kids would play more soccer... Apparently Thai officials feel it's the best prescription for adolescent horndoggery.

World News - Soccer or sex? Thai teens ponder puzzling choice

[lisarea]

O god.

Boulder parent raises concerns about abstinence presenter - Boulder Daily Camera

This is our school district.

[SR71]

That post is a good lead in to one of the sub-components in the general topic that is weirding me out so much. I'm not a behaviorist type so have not really thought seriously about this subject before.

Suppose you have an ordinary human adolescent who has had an excellent education regarding reproductive matters. Everything has been laid out in a matter of fact manner. The benefit of abstinence and strict whole life monogamy, i.e 100% certainty of remaining STD free and not being a single parent, has been explained. The preventive measures and their rates of effectiveness have been explained. The STD's, their effects, the methods of treatments and the extent to which they can or can't be treated have been explained. The biology of reproduction is covered. Everything pertinent has been covered in a straightforward manner and the individual has understood and retained the information.

Here is one of the places where it gets into Spock in Must territory. Individuals within a population as described above will probably (IMO) engage in behaviors that span the full spectrum of safe / unsafe behavior. I can not seem to clearly communicate the thing I am trying to talk about. The thought is sort of that the wide variability of individual behavior is partly what makes this topic difficult to discuss and somewhat uncomfortable. The variability lies at the root of some of the labels we apply to describe a person's reproductive behavior and their character. The labels might not exist if behavior was more uniform within the species.

[lisarea]

I just want to point this out:

The presenter, Brad Seng, said the student appears to have misconstrued the talk.

"One of the first things I say is that it's not that sex is bad or is a dirty activity to be engaging in," he said. "That's not it at all. It's about encouraging young people to make healthy lifestyle decisions. Our method is grounded in truth and non-judgmental."

He said he provides information on sexually transmitted diseases from the Centers for Disease Control, as well as information on "the emotional strife when children choose to be sexually active."

The water glass activity, he said, is a way to engage students. He said students drink the water while eating a snack and mixing some of their snack in the water. Then they exchange glasses. He asks them to drink the water, prompting students to say, "No, it looks nasty."

"It's a way to show them that, if they decide to be sexually active outside of a long-term committed relationship, they're putting themselves at risk," he said.

Look at the casual way this piece of shit just flat-out lies, and expects people to accept it.

Oh, no, of course, students must have 'misconstrued' the analogy you made between drinking saliva and chewed up food and having sex with someone who has had sex in the past. This was in no way meant to compare a used vagina with, say, oh, I don't know, a 'nasty' glass of masticated food or anything. This exercise is designed to be understood from the perspective of the GLASS OF WATER, to really get kids thinking about how bad they would feel if they were a glass of dirty water. That part where he asks the kids if they want to drink it is just for lulz. It's not supposed to be an analogy to having sex with a dirty slut. It just gives Brad Seng a boner to think about making kids drink each others' spit out food.

Oh, yeah, I also forgot we're probably supposed to pretend that his analogy applies equally to boys, amirite?

Never mind how absurdly and implausibly incompetent you'd have to be to be some kind of professional educator and accidentally make an association like that, in an obviously prepared activity. I mean, I have no doubt that this guy is a colossal idiot, but even I can't even pretend to think he's that stupid.

Fuck that stupid lying asshole so figuratively.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by SR71

That post is a good lead in to one of the sub-components in the general topic that is weirding me out so much. I'm not a behaviorist type so have not really thought seriously about this subject before.

Suppose you have an ordinary human adolescent who has had an excellent education regarding reproductive matters. Everything has been laid out in a matter of fact manner. The benefit of abstinence and strict whole life monogamy, i.e 100% certainty of remaining STD free and not being a single parent, has been explained. The preventive measures and their rates of effectiveness have been explained. The STD's, their effects, the methods of treatments and the extent to which they can or can't be treated have been explained. The biology of reproduction is covered. Everything pertinent has been covered in a straightforward manner and the individual has understood and retained the information.

Here is one of the places where it gets into Spock in Must territory. Individuals within a population as described above will probably (IMO) engage in behaviors that span the full spectrum of safe / unsafe behavior. I can not seem to clearly communicate the thing I am trying to talk about. The thought is sort of that the wide variability of individual behavior is partly what makes this topic difficult to discuss and somewhat uncomfortable. The variability lies at the root of some of the labels we apply to describe a person's reproductive behavior and their character. The labels might not exist if behavior was more uniform within the species.

I have to do some things and can't find this right away, but there have been comparisons and at least casual studies of young people's attitudes and education about sex in the US vs. in parts of Europe. I distinctly recall one where interviewers were asking US and European teenagers about what they think of someone who carries condoms with them regularly; and the differences were pretty distinct. The American kids thought very poorly of that behavior, and the European kids seemed confused as to why anyone wouldn't carry condoms with them, and as to why the interviewer was asking them.

So my first thought, if I didn't have to do some more boring things now, would be to try to find that, and also find some of the studies out there that correlate sex education in various countries with teen pregnancy rates and such. There is a very very clear correlation between good sex ed curricula and lowered rates of teen pregnancies.

Again, though, this goes back to the whole argument that many religious conservatives do not consider teen pregnancy the devastating and life altering event that most libruls and other communists do; so these statistics aren't necessarily as compelling as one might imagine they would be.

[SR71]

One of the first things I say is that it's not that sex is bad or is a dirty activity to be engaging in," he said. "That's not it at all. It's about encouraging young people to make healthy lifestyle decisions. Our method is grounded in truth and non-judgmental.

Now attempting to synthesize on this regressive cretin and my wild highly hypothetical tangent - These people who try to foster the dirty dish towel perception of people who engage in multi partner activity seem to have their heads up their asses with respect to what people, including young people, will actually do. Trying to attach a derogatory perception to persons who engage in less than puritanical behavior seems unlikely to me to actually alter behavior very much. It does seem likely to contribute to unhealthy attitudes and states of mind of people towards themselves and others though.

I myself have never had a negative attitude towards people based on the number or timing of their activities. I know for a fact that this outlook is not universal though, and that the sexist double standard does exist and persist in some fraction of the population.

[Kael]

There is common misunderstanding I have with most people when we discuss topics like sex and drug education, which is that many people assume that whatever decision they feel is the "right" one, for whatever reason, simply needs to be applied at the administrative level and the problem will go away. Put more specifically, they assume that personal decision-making or morality and group decision-making or morality are interchangeable, that what is best in one is what is best in the other. The thing is, we know that this is not true. It does not simply fail when tried, it fails spectacularly and unequivocally.

From an education, administration, and public policy perspective, the question must not be simply what is the best, safest, or most risk-minimizing choice, but what do we do to continue to minimize risk even when people do not make that choice. This is why the UKs clean needle program reduces blood-borne illnesses, while Singapore's "lock 'em all away" approach does not. This is why comprehensive sex education reduces STDs and unplanned pregnancy while "abstinence only" does not. You can't micro-manage every individual case, and you can't assume that everyone will make the same decisions or find themselves in the same circumstances.

So, as a parent, you are free to tell your children whatever you feel is best about sex, including only telling them not to engage in sexual activity until whatever time you feels is appropriate. You are more closely involved, at least ideally, with your child's growth and what influences their decision-making than would generally be appropriate for an educator or administrator. Those educators and administrators, on the other hand, have a responsibility, not to any one child but to the group and society as a whole, to provide the information and resources that continue to minimize the risks even for those who choose to behave contrary to any given individual's moral code. It makes society safer, cleaner, and of course costs less than not providing it would, and that helps everybody.

Of course, it's also worth pointing out here that while the risk of things like STDs and unplanned pregnancy under actual abstinence is technically zero, the risk of them under strict condom use is still very close to zero. Much lower than, say, the risk of a deadly automobile accident when you drive on the interstate. If kids should know about seat belts, why should they not know about condoms?

And, of course, as I said above, the fuckers that go around getting kids, mostly girls, to analogize those who do choose to be sexually active with used towels or filthy water, they can go fuck themselves so fucking hard their eyes pop out.

[Angakuk]

I have long maintained that seat belts should come equipped with condoms. You can't be too safe.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Kael

Of course, it's also worth pointing out here that while the risk of things like STDs and unplanned pregnancy under actual abstinence is technically zero

That depends on how you define abstinence and which STDs you're talking about, actually...

[SR71]

Originally Posted by erimir

That depends on how you define abstinence and which STDs you're talking about, actually...

The weird confluence of events that spawned this despicable little thrad - I saw kids holding hands, which made me happy, bringing back pleasant memories of innocent smoochery...

And then Watser comedy bombed us with this item -
Daily Kos: Tennessee senate warns hand-holding is a 'gateway sexualÂ*activity' which contained this scrumptious little morsel of konservakrazy parsimonious paranoia -

Tennessee senators approved an update to the state's abstinence-based sex education law that includes warnings against "gateway sexual activity."
In a new family life instructions bill, holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex.

[Kashmir]

Why stop there, Tennessee? They can still see one another and lust. You've got to either do away with co-ed schools, or make the girls wear Anabaptist garb or a burqa.

[Angakuk]

Boys, remember this, when you hold a girl's hand you have no way of knowing how many other hands she may have held. Just say, "No thanks, I'll wait until I can get clean towel".

[Janet]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Why stop there, Tennessee? They can still see one another and lust. You've got to either do away with co-ed schools, or make the girls wear Anabaptist garb or a burqa.

Colbert suggested blinders, and outlawing puberty.

[lisarea]

I don't know about surprising, but it's good to see that someone has actually figured out a way to demonstrate this:

Teen moms: How poverty and inequality cause teens to have babies, not the other way around. - Slate Magazine

[SR71]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I don't know about surprising, but it's good to see that someone has actually figured out a way to demonstrate this:

Teen moms: How poverty and inequality cause teens to have babies, not the other way around. - Slate Magazine

Where poor people can see that hard work and “playing by the rules” will reward them, they’re pretty likely to do just that. Where the system looks stacked against them, they’re more likely to abandon mainstream norms. Those who do so by becoming single teen moms end up fairing poorly in life, but those bad outcomes seem to be a result of bleak underlying circumstances rather than poor choices.

Finally got a chance to read this, and it agrees closely with my own thoughts on the subject.

I really wish there was some way to make people see this. So many people think we have multigenerational poverty because poor people like it that way or something. The dynamic described in the article is exactly the way I have viewed poverty. When prospects look bleak, and opportunity is not there, people get a case of the fuck its, if you will. For people in the lowest income groups, viable pathways to positive outcomes simply do not exist. In those circumstances, there is no incentive for people to eschew behaviors that people with better prospects would be motivated to resist, because they are screwed either way. An exceptional few will make some exceptional moves, but those individuals are, after all, exceptional.